La réception réciproque de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine dans les systèmes belge, français et luxembourgeois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les droits civils belge, français et luxembourgeois partagent d’importantes convergences systémiques. Ces droits ont conservé un code civil hérité de la période napoléonienne, et ce code deux fois centenaire contenait encore de nombreuses dispositions maintenues dans la lettre du Code de 1804. De manière identique dans ces trois systèmes juridiques, une place importante a été laissée à la jurisprudence et à la doctrine pour faire évoluer le sens de la loi civile. Ce constat est le point de départ d’une recherche consacrée à la circulation des formants juridiques. L’auteure propose ainsi d’étudier la question des transferts de droit dans des systèmes romanistes encore classiquement présentés comme légalistes, et ce, pour comprendre la façon dont un système national de tradition civiliste parvient — ou non — à accueillir un élément jurisprudentiel ou doctrinal de droit étranger en vue de l’associer aux réflexions et aux controverses locales, voire de l’intégrer à son droit positif.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".